Does Aerial Assist achieve the goal?

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

I agree with Sean to an extent.
The fact that no safe zone was created for this game, makes it nearly impossible for the majority of teams who cant make a shot if a defender(s) are whacking them constantly.

I feel we built a robot around defense and have experienced drivers. But with that, we feel its very tough to score regardless.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I agree with Sean to an extent.
The fact that no safe zone was created for this game, makes it nearly impossible for the majority of teams who cant make a shot if a defender(s) are whacking them constantly.

I feel we built a robot around defense and have experienced drivers. But with that, we feel its very tough to score regardless.

Oh but there is a "safe" zone, just not many teams have figured it out. I've seen a couple that have and they are pretty unstoppable because they can still make their shot even when they are constantly getting whacked.

[themccannman]

This game isn't a total flop, but as far as I can tell, great robots are doing better, and average robots are doing worse, it seems to me like the best teams at each regional are pretty dominant.

[ErvinI]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Oh but there is a "safe" zone, just not many teams have figured it out. I've seen a couple that have and they are pretty unstoppable because they can still make their shot even when they are constantly getting whacked.

Do tell. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is in front of the low goal, which is pretty awful for teams that have back intakes that have to move out of the way to shoot (like 148). Also, if you are right up against the edge of the field (otherwise, others can push you from the side), then you can't hit the high goal because its edge is further in the field (I believe 1114 was having troubles with this in the elims).

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Oh but there is a "safe" zone, just not many teams have figured it out. I've seen a couple that have and they are pretty unstoppable because they can still make their shot even when they are constantly getting whacked.

If you are referring to being in front of the low goal or wall, that is exactly how we shoot. Its been key to us doing relatively well this season.
But what about everyone else who cant?
Shooting from the white line is easy for a lot of teams.........without defense.

[sircedric4]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

No this game failed. FIRST keeps forgetting kids want to play the game. They made a game where teams never get the opportunity to shoot the ball because they are not the fastest or most accurate.

I agree completely and pretty much predicted this exact scenario back in the first week Aerial Assist and Ill Will thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...67#post1325467

While good teams can really cooperate and do well together, it almost always excludes at least one team (the third alliance picked member) to having to play defense. If you are lucky the third person can "herd" the ball long enough to get an assist. (Don't get me started on how possession rules are totally not consistent, a single hit won't count as an assist, but it will be enough for a penalty)

A single game piece is just not a good idea for FIRST games. Kids want to play, want to use their robot. It is not inspiring to play bumper cars.

[Miss157]

From a student's point of view, one who's only seen three years of competition, I actually really like this game.

I think it kind of changed it up from the previous years. For instance, I don't really think that powerhouse teams are doing as well? Two of my favorite teams are 125 and 126 and I've seen them go all the way, both of them at Boston last year and they weren't as much of a dominating force this year.

Then at WPI, 5122, a rookie team, was a finalist along with two great teams, including 2648, who I've also seen go all the way before.

In addition to the powerhouse teams, in my opinion, not being as much of a dominating force, alliance selection has been really interesting. Now I can't credit all of that to the game because some or most of it may be an increase of scouting on a lot of teams, but it seems that there's a lot more variance in alliance selection, especially with 3rd pick.

In my previous years, at the regionals I attended, it seemed like for 3rd pick 8 would pick the highest seed available, and it would continue with that trend, but that hasn't seemed to have happened, at least not at WPI.

Also, for the one robot breaking and wrecking the whole alliance, there are back-ups. And maybe it's a shift in the game, but it doesn't seem as many are being called, although that is definitely subject to opinion.

[Justin Montois]

I think the issue is FIRST is trying to push more Cooperation in Qualification matches. The issue is with the inherent randomness of the schedule, trying to play as a team is pretty difficult unless you get lucky. How is an alliance of three 'Type A' robots going to play as well as an alliance that has 'Type A' 'Type B' and 'Type C'? They aren't.

I always enjoyed seeing the teamwork really shine in Eliminations, I'd like to see FRIST try to force it less in Qualifications.

[bigbeezy]

I think this is an excellent game, very similar to 2006. However, there were no "safe zones." 1 elite team could, and did, dominate a match. Bumpers were not required then and bots had to actually be built to take a hit. Teamwork consisted of "bad team = backbot."

Yes, teamwork is actually needed in quals for a change. Elite teams can (more than ever imo) be shut down by a good strategy, not great execution. How many teams have reached out to other local teams this year that otherwise wouldn't? I'm thinking more than ever. How have the "elite" teams helped the lesser teams be competitive so that they have a better shot at winning? How is 3 robots playing the game essentially solo, teamwork? How many years has strategy been essentially: this is what we do, and it doesn't really matter what you do except for where you line up in auto. Elite teams, how many other teams helped play defense for you during quals in the past?

What is more inspiring, being on an alliance that wins because Team 0 scored a ton of points like they do in every match regardless of what you did or being on an alliance where you had an integral part (which could simply be passing the ball or setting screens) in what allowed Team 0 to score many points?

Yes, robots break down and that severely hurts an alliance. Does this not teach teams to build more robustly, and encourage other teams to seek-out and assist fellow teams who are having issues?

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by ErvinI

Do tell. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is in front of the low goal, which is pretty awful for teams that have back intakes that have to move out of the way to shoot (like 148). Also, if you are right up against the edge of the field (otherwise, others can push you from the side), then you can't hit the high goal because its edge is further in the field (I believe 1114 was having troubles with this in the elims).

Originally Posted by waialua359

If you are referring to being in front of the low goal or wall, that is exactly how we shoot. Its been key to us doing relatively well this season.
But what about everyone else who cant?
Shooting from the white line is easy for a lot of teams.........without defense.

This is it, but yes you would have had to identify it early on and design your robot to be able to shoot from there. I have seen other teams successfully use this strategy.

Our strategy team did identify it as a safe place and the need to be able to shoot from there by day 2, however our design team did not design around that, so we are out on the white line getting pushed around.

[Rohawk1]

I think Aerial Assist definitely achieves the goal. Maybe it's because this is only my second year of FIRST, but I think this game forces teams to work together in order to win. After Palmetto, I remember teams that went solo didn't do as well as alliances that worked together, even with powerhouse teams. Our drive team had to work with the other teams to develop a quick strategy, and that means scouting is incredibly important in this game. Communicating scouting information to drive team and checking out the other teams before the match to see if they need help are important aspects, at least they were at Palmetto it seemed.

I feel like it gives rookies a good chance at winning as well. A kit bot can easily be on a winning alliance this year.

Also, of course teams will want to see their robot do what it was made to do, but sometimes bot designs can have hidden talents. To give an example, at Palmetto I don't know if 1311 (Kell Robotics) designed their robot to be a defense bot from the beginning or not, but they definitely proved to be one of the best defensive bots at the regional by eliminations. Also, our alliance partners, 4935 (T-Rex) had a shooter, but we saw from the scouting data that they also had an incredible defensive presence on the field. Maybe this game does not always allow teams to use their robots in the intended way all the time, but it makes us adapt to the situations we are thrown in with random teams and forces us to work with them quickly to find out how everyone can use their robot for the benefit of the alliance. This adaptability and willingness to cooperate seems definitely necessary in this game, and I think that's what FIRST wants.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by bigbeezy

I think this is an excellent game, very similar to 2006. However, there were no "safe zones." 1 elite team could, and did, dominate a match. Bumpers were not required then and bots had to actually be built to take a hit. Teamwork consisted of "bad team = backbot."

Yes, teamwork is actually needed in quals for a change. Elite teams can (more than ever imo) be shut down by a good strategy, not great execution. How many teams have reached out to other local teams this year that otherwise wouldn't? I'm thinking more than ever. How have the "elite" teams helped the lesser teams be competitive so that they have a better shot at winning? How is 3 robots playing the game essentially solo, teamwork? How many years has strategy been essentially: this is what we do, and it doesn't really matter what you do except for where you line up in auto. Elite teams, how many other teams helped play defense for you during quals in the past?

I think the GDC could have taken a hint from the single most exciting strategy of last year's game--the full court shooter fighting it out with a blocking defender. When the FCS could get dialed in, the points pouring in was a crowd pleaser. But the real battle was when a blocking defender tried to get into position an offensive alliance member had to first help maneuver the FCS into position, and then counterblock to clear a path. Further, a ground pickup robot could collect missed shots at the other end.

Even though we were not an FCS, but we did have ground pick up. We won at CVR and Curie with the strategy, and several times we sacrificed our offensive capability to counter defend. We also picked our third robot to counter defend, effectively.

If the GDC has foreseen that strategy, it could have given bonus scores for FCS to encourage an activity that takes a full team--it really required 3 robots. Yes, the FCS is a difficult task that may limit the robots capable of it, but maybe we could come up with a more meaningful task for the 3rd robot, e.g., an autonomous activity that an FCS can't do easily.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by MaxMax161

Giving robots who are anything but perfectly reliable the ball is a huge liability and that hurts teamwork. This game punishes an alliance for giving the little guy a chance because that little guy might get pinned, or not be able to eject the ball and the alliance is dead in the water.

This.

We had an alliance partner in a Quals match at Chesnut hill that said "We can inbound from the human player, but if we get tapped we lose comms for about 30 seconds."

We had to flat out tell them they shouldn't have the ball inside of their robot. We felt horrible, but what else would we be able to do? Of course, they went ahead and did it anyway. And I'll leave the rest of that match up to your imagination.

I think the GDC missed a huge point when designing this game: 65% of robots at your everyday regional or district event don't actually work as intended if at all. And the GDC just put an entire alliance including my team in trouble because one of those robots are on it. Sure, this game will be a killer come champs. But what about all those teams that don't make it? >5k down the drain.